The South African racist and oppressive political dispensation denied Namibians their deserved services. 

With the advent of nationhood thirty-four years ago, one would have thought that basic services would be a right and made available to every Namibian, irrespective of social status and political affiliation.  But the situation on the ground is just the opposite of the reality and expectations of the people. 

It seems that in some places, services such as clean water, electricity, medical attention and many affordable activities are hard to come by. In most cases, people have to travel long distances to access some basic services, as certain amenities may not be available in their areas. Sometimes the affected communities are denied the services as the nearer office may not be in a position to serve them as a result of budgetary constraints.   In these areas, applying for an identity card and having one copy certified forces people to travel long distances to access such services.  Consequently, many communities are demanding more regions and constituencies to access the basic services which they so desperately need. It is against this background that communities have been demanding through the Commission that their plight should be looked into. 

However, many questions are being raised as to why such a scenario should occur in the ‘land of plenty’ after more than three decades of nationhood. 

The Namibian topography should not be regarded as the main culprit, as there are many countries which are geographically worse off than Namibia, but access services with ease. 

As Chinua Achebe (1998) puts it in his book, “The Trouble with Nigeria,” there is nothing wrong with the climatic conditions in that country because people fail to deliver services. Similarly, there is nothing awry with the Namibian panorama, but it is the political leadership which is failing to deliver their promises on service delivery to the electorate. 

Many reasons might be attributed to the service -delivery- shortcoming-syndrome, but incompetence, inconsequential leadership and lack of patriotism, coupled with corruption at a large scale might be some major factors. If money earmarked for projects and services is embezzled, surely no development should be expected, and communities are left behind in the provision of services.  In addition, many councillors are hardly found in their offices whenever the electorate wants their concerns and challenges attended to. Some honourable councillors are failing to rise to their responsibility as leaders of their constituencies, but are capable of masquerading before their electorate during election campaign times. It seems some of the councillors might have inherited the Bantustan system in which the then-South African regime appointed legislators who were only accountable to the appointing authority. Augmenting this system, our current election method of governance has twisted slightly from the colonial one, in the sense that the candidates who contest for elections are accountable to the party and its political leader. 

Even the regional council system is a replica of the national election method. In a nutshell, although we boast being democratic, we are actually being ruled and controlled by a handful of powerful political elitist leaders. 

This means that should the contesting candidate not be in the shoes of the political boss, the aspiring contender may not pass or cross the line to the National Assembly and the Second House of Parliament. 

However, the masses who have been complaining about insufficient service delivery may not understand the main cause of their dilemma. The real problem here is the system of governance, which does not hold legislators to account for every action during the tenure of their office. Compare our legislators with the Zambian or perhaps the Zimbabwean ones, for example, where political contenders go out there and appeal and ask the people to vote for them. 

In return, the electorate is told to hold them accountable should they fail to deliver. In the Namibian situation, party dominance makes it difficult for politicians to account for their actions during their term of office.  No wonder when one politician was confronted for his insubstantial service delivery, barked back and told the electorate complainant that he had no right to complain as the legislator was picked by the Head of State, and responsible to him, and not to the electorate. Many Namibian politicians are therefore in their comfort zone as they hide behind the party apparatus, as no electorate has the right to challenge them for accountability. 

And because the masses are not adequately served, they feel that by increasing their regions and splitting the constituencies, ‘service delivery’ will be delivered before their door, ushering in the new era of ‘Utopia’ flowing with milk and honey.  This in fact an illusion, as it has been observed that service delivery has been declining year after year, with very little improvements in some areas. Namibia has been increasing almost everything in the political arena, but this has only advantaged the political elite and comrades at the expense of the toiling masses. If Namibian regions are compared to Zambian provinces, the latter has only 10 provinces 16 years into Independence in October this year with a population almost bypassing 20 million. Namibia with only three million people and 14 regions, surely insufficient service delivery emanates from the unaccountability of the political leadership to the masses, who are being held hostage by the system. 

*Prof. Makala Lilemba is an academician, author, diplomat, motivational leader, researcher and scholar.